TrustChain-Review: A Risk-Adaptive Blockchain and Game-Theoretic Framework for Trustworthy AI-Assisted Code Review

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.27310v1
• Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2026 17:53:52 GMT
• Title: TrustChain-Review: A Risk-Adaptive Blockchain and Game-Theoretic Framework for Trustworthy AI-Assisted Code Review
• Abstract summary: This study introduces TrustChain-Review, a framework that combines verifiable evidence, strategic incentives, and risk-sensitive governance.<n>Six governance configurations are compared over 30 independent runs using reputation accuracy, trust convergence, malicious-review detection, superficial-review detection, net platform utility, governance cost, and cost-efficiency.<n>The full-evidence configuration produces the strongest reputation, trust, and detection results, but it also has the highest governance cost.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Context: AI-assisted software development can speed up coding and review, but it also makes accountability harder to establish. Developers may submit insufficiently verified code, reviewers may approve changes with limited inspection, and centralized reputation records may be difficult to audit. Objectives: This study introduces TrustChain-Review, a framework that combines verifiable evidence, strategic incentives, and risk-sensitive governance to support more trustworthy code review. Methods: The framework includes a blockchain-based evidence layer, a three-player game-theoretic model for developers, reviewers, and the platform, and a rule that applies stronger governance when the expected benefit justifies its cost. The evaluation uses a controlled simulation calibrated with the Diff Quality Estimation dataset. Six governance configurations are compared over 30 independent runs using reputation accuracy, trust convergence, malicious-review detection, superficial-review detection, net platform utility, governance cost, and cost-efficiency. Results: The full-evidence configuration produces the strongest reputation, trust, and detection results, but it also has the highest governance cost. The risk-adaptive configuration lowers this cost and improves cost-efficiency by applying stronger controls selectively, although its trust and detection results are lower than those of the full-evidence setting. Conclusion: Strong evidence-based governance is most appropriate for high-risk or audit-sensitive changes. For routine or lower-risk contributions, selective governance offers a more practical balance between trustworthiness and operational cost.

Related papers

• Manipulation-Proof Oblivious Audits against Deceptive Model Providers [4.614773550999029]
  In regulatory contexts, audits are typically declared or easily detected, enabling model providers to manipulate the process.<n>This vulnerability is particularly acute in the context of fairness evaluations.<n>We introduce a novel audit protocol designed to significantly increase the post-audit detectability of such manipulations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-05T02:12:54Z)
• CTRAG: An In-Context Retrieval-based Framework for Automated Compliance Checking using LLMs [3.4983716329137344]
  We present CTRAG, a novel Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) pipeline designed for automated compliance checking.<n>CTRAG achieves highly accurate, document-informed compliance verification, even in cases of indirect compliance through third-party services.<n> Empirical evaluations demonstrate significant improvements, with CTRAG achieving an F1-score of 78% and a recall of 85% in the final deployed configuration.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-03T16:40:16Z)
• Bayesian control for coding agents [63.64172141184361]
  We propose a cost-sensitive sequential hypothesis testing framework for coding agents.<n>A Bayesian controller maintains a belief over correctness and decides whether to gather more evidence, refine the candidate, verify it, or stop.<n>We show that the belief state yields an interpretable correctness score that outperforms token-probability and raw tool-success baselines for uncertainty quantification.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-23T11:41:32Z)
• Time to REFLECT: Can We Trust LLM Judges for Evidence-based Research Agents? [61.49434544687523]
  We introduce REFLECT, a meta-evaluation benchmark targeting fine-grained failure detection in agentic environments.<n> REFLECT defines a detailed taxonomy of process- and outcome-level failure modes, instantiated by performing controlled and localized interventions.<n>Our experiments show that even the best-performing models achieve overall accuracies below 55% across reasoning, tool-use, and report-quality failures.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-18T23:55:08Z)
• Reward Hacking in Rubric-Based Reinforcement Learning [23.418394508756464]
  We study reward hacking in rubric-based RL, where a policy is optimized against a training verifier but evaluated against a cross-family panel of three frontier judges.<n>Our framework separates two sources of divergence: verifier failure and rubric-design limitations.<n>Across medical and science domains, weak verifiers produce large proxy-reward gains that do not transfer to the reference verifiers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-12T17:54:25Z)
• TRUST: A Framework for Decentralized AI Service v.0.1 [47.384270414446604]
  Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) and Multi-Agent Systems (MAS) in high-stakes domains demand reliable verification.<n>We introduce TRUST (Transparent, Robust, and Unified Services for Trustworthy AI), a decentralized framework with three innovations.<n>We prove a Safety-Profitability Theorem ensuring honest auditors profit while malicious actors incur losses.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-29T19:32:58Z)
• Process Supervision of Confidence Margin for Calibrated LLM Reasoning [52.373121066425455]
  Scaling test-time computation with reinforcement learning (RL) has emerged as a reliable path to improve large language models (LLM) reasoning ability.<n>Yet, outcome-based reward often incentivizes models to be overconfident, leading to hallucinations, unreliable confidence-based control, and unnecessary compute allocation.<n>We introduce Reinforcement Learning with Confidence Margin (textbfRLCM), a calibration-aware RL framework that jointly optimize correctness and confidence reliability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-25T14:40:13Z)
• When to Trust the Cheap Check: Weak and Strong Verification for Reasoning [26.38833436936642]
  We formalize the tension between strong and weak verification.<n>We show that optimal policies admit a two-threshold structure and that calibration and sharpness govern the value of weak verifiers.<n>We develop an online algorithm that provably controls acceptance and rejection errors without assumptions on the query stream, the language model, or the weak verifier.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-19T18:47:38Z)
• Preventing the Collapse of Peer Review Requires Verification-First AI [49.995126139461085]
  We propose truth-coupling, i.e. how tightly venue scores track latent scientific truth.<n>We formalize two forces that drive a phase transition toward proxy-sovereign evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-23T17:17:32Z)
• Zero-shot reasoning for simulating scholarly peer-review [0.0]
  We investigate a deterministic simulation framework that provides the first stable, evidence-based standard for evaluating AI-generated peer review reports.<n>First, the system is able to simulate calibrated editorial judgment, with 'Revise' decisions consistently forming the majority outcome.<n>Second, it maintains unwavering procedural integrity, enforcing a stable 29% evidence-anchoring compliance rate.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-02T13:59:14Z)
• Position: The Hidden Costs and Measurement Gaps of Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards [110.47944672736723]
  We argue that gains are often overstated due to three forces - an RLVR tax, evaluation pitfalls, and data contamination.<n>We propose a tax-aware training and evaluation protocol that co-optimizes accuracy, grounding, and calibrated abstention.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-26T05:06:25Z)
• A Game-Theoretic Analysis of Auditing Differentially Private Algorithms with Epistemically Disparate Herd [16.10098472773814]
  This study examines the impact of herd audits on algorithm developers using the Stackelberg game approach. By enhancing transparency and accountability, herd audit contributes to the responsible development of privacy-preserving algorithms.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-24T20:34:27Z)

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.