arXiv:2607.09259cs.CRcs.AI2026-07

用区块链管理电信/物联网欺诈请求,实现可审计的全生命周期决策。

Blockchain-Linked Auditable Decision Management for Telecom/IoT Fraud-Control Requests

论文配图:Blockchain-Linked Auditable Decision Management for Telecom/IoT Fraud-Control Requests
图 1 · 摘自论文原文
  • 构建基于区块链的欺诈请求管理框架,整合多源风险评分与五状态策略
  • QLoRA微调的LLM在软欺诈召回率达82.4%,但误报率仍高于集中式模型
  • 适合需要可审计、跨系统协同的电信/物联网安全场景

电信欺诈防控研究常止步于检测层分类,但实际部署需请求级策略决策、生命周期可追溯及审计能力。本文将欺诈防控重构为针对合成电信/IoT欺诈请求的区块链关联可审计决策管理。框架将每个合成部署记录映射为可管理请求,通过确定性硬欺诈门过滤明显违规,非硬欺诈请求由集中式机器学习(M1)、联邦元学习(M2)或大模型家族(M3)进行评分,并通过共享五状态策略与双区精炼机制决断。本地以兼容以太坊的审计层记录全流程。评估使用独立合成训练数据与十万条部署回放数据集,结果呈现受控漂移回放证据而非真实部署验证。验证阶段M1表现最佳,合法请求误报率0.0890,低于0.10阈值,软欺诈召回率0.8341;但在标注部署回放中,合法误报率显著上升:M1达0.1646,M3-QLoRA达0.1801,而后者将基线模型(M3-Base)的合法误报率从0.3915降至0.1801,召回率达0.8240。区块链日志显示,生命周期气体消耗、成本、延迟和吞吐量差异主要由离链决策配置决定,而非欺诈逻辑变更。

原文摘要 · Abstract (English)

Telecom fraud-control studies often stop at detector-level classification, but deployment use requires request-level policy resolution, lifecycle traceability, and auditability. This paper reframes fraud control as blockchain-linked auditable decision management for synthetic telecom/IoT fraud-control requests, and its main result is that the QLoRA-tuned LLM branch becomes much more usable than zero-shot prompting but mainly approaches, rather than outperforms, a lower-cost centralized ensemble. The framework maps each synthetic deployment record to a managed request, blocks explicit out-of-boundary cases through a deterministic hard-fraud gate, scores non-hard requests using centralized ML (M1), federated meta-learning (M2), or LLM-family risk sources (M3), and resolves actions through a shared five-state policy, two-zone refinement mechanism, and local Ethereum-compatible audit layer. Evaluation uses separate synthetic training data and a 100,000-record deployment replay corpus, so the study should be read as controlled drift-replay evidence rather than field validation or proof of live deployability. On validation, M1 gives the strongest balance, with legitimate-request FPR 0.0890 under the 0.10 operating cap and soft-fraud recall 0.8341. On labeled deployment replay, however, the legitimate-FPR gap becomes large: M1 rises to 0.1646 and M3-QLoRA to 0.1801, while M3-QLoRA reduces the M3-Base legitimate FPR from 0.3915 and reaches 0.8240 soft-fraud recall. Blockchain telemetry shows that lifecycle gas, cost, latency, and throughput differences are driven by submitted off-chain decision profiles rather than changes in fraud logic.

区块链欺诈防控LLM审计

Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. PaperDance 不是 arXiv 官方产品;中文卡片由大模型生成,请以原文为准。