Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Authenticated vehicles can disseminate false safety messages that pass cryptographic verification but remain behaviorally untruthful, making insider misbehavior a challenge in Vehicular Ad Hoc Networks (VANETs). This study proposes MoFed-Guard , a data-local federated framework combining OBU-TFT , a compact temporal Transformer, with reliability-aware aggregation and on-demand SHAP explanation. Fixed RSUs act as training clients and OBUs perform inference. MoFed-Guard weights client updates using vehicle-association stability, communication reliability, and leave-one-client-out update consistency; these indicators are evaluated empirically rather than treated as theoretically derived trust variables. On the trajectory-disjoint 20-class VeReMi Extension test partition, the framework achieved 95.20% accuracy, 94.75% macro-precision, 94.30% macro-recall, and 94.52% macro-F1. With architecture and training fixed, MoFed-Guard improved macro-F1 by 1.45 points over FedAvg and 0.61 points over FedAdam; the five-seed improvement was significant [ t (4) = 6.30, p = 0.003, d z = 2.82]. Five-seed convergence reached 98.0 ± 0.2% validation macro-F1 at round 100, while held-out client-scale macro-F1 increased from 93.10% with three clients to 94.52% with ten. Explicit FL-layer delivery tests and a road-network-aware partition preserved the aggregation benefit, whereas coordinated-client corruption exposed the limitation of cosine-based consistency. The joint reliability score correlated positively with update utility (ρ = 0.71, p < 0.001). OBU-TFT contains 85,460 trainable parameters, occupies 0.34 MB, and achieved 5.10 ± 0.42 ms T4 inference latency. Parameter-matched comparison showed that OBU-TFT achieved higher macro-F1 than Linformer and Performer, although Linformer remained smaller and faster. These results support empirical reliability-conditioned federated weighting under simulation without implying universal convergence, Byzantine robustness, formal privacy, or field deployment readiness.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Khan et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: