Demonstrates a new polynomial commitment framework enhancing zero-knowledge proofs in federated learning, suggesting improved scalability in specific dimensions.
Federated learning enables collaborative model training without sharing raw data, but practical deployments increasingly require verifiable guarantees that clients compute updates correctly. Zero-knowledge proofs can provide such guarantees, yet existing approaches face scalability limits due to the combined cost of polynomial commitments and fast Fourier transform (FFT) intensive verification. Pairing-based schemes offer compact proofs but incur high prover and verifier overhead, while hash-based constructions reduce algebraic cost at the expense of rapidly growing proof sizes. This paper proposes Hybrid-Commit, a polynomial commitment architecture for Binius zero-knowledge proofs that aligns cryptographic primitives with the algebraic structure of federated learning workloads. The scheme separates verification into additive and multiplicative phases: linear aggregation is handled using batched additive commitments optimized for binary fields, while non-linear constraints are verified via hash-based commitments over sparsely selected FFT domains. Proofs from multiple clients are combined through recursive aggregation while preserving non-interactivity. Experiments demonstrate scalability in prover time and proof size (near-constant prover time across 4–11 clients; 160 bytes per client representing 341× and 813× reductions vs. FRI-PCS and Orion), although verification time (762 ms per client) does not scale favorably, making the scheme suitable for bandwidth-constrained scenarios. The scheme achieves under 2% end-to-end training overhead with no impact on model accuracy, indicating that workload-aware commitment design can improve specific scalability dimensions of zero-knowledge verification in federated learning systems.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Andriambelo et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: