Agentic Trust Coordination for Federated Learning through Adaptive Thresholding and Autonomous Decision Making in Sustainable and Resilient Industrial Networks

Paul Shepherd, Tasos Dagiuklas, Bugra Alkan, Jonathan Rodriguez · Mar 26, 2026 · Citations: 0

Open arXiv Find Implementation RSS feed Shortlist (0)

How to use this page

Low trust

Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.

Best use

Background context only

What to verify

Read the full paper before copying any benchmark, metric, or protocol choices.

Evidence quality

Low

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Abstract

Distributed intelligence in industrial networks increasingly integrates sensing, communication, and computation across heterogeneous and resource constrained devices. Federated learning (FL) enables collaborative model training in such environments, but its reliability is affected by inconsistent client behaviour, noisy sensing conditions, and the presence of faulty or adversarial updates. Trust based mechanisms are commonly used to mitigate these effects, yet most remain statistical and heuristic, relying on fixed parameters or simple adaptive rules that struggle to accommodate changing operating conditions. This paper presents a lightweight agentic trust coordination approach for FL in sustainable and resilient industrial networks. The proposed Agentic Trust Control Layer operates as a server side control loop that observes trust related and system level signals, interprets their evolution over time, and applies targeted trust adjustments when instability is detected. The approach extends prior adaptive trust mechanisms by enabling context aware intervention decisions, rather than relying on fixed or purely reactive parameter updates. By explicitly separating observation, reasoning, and action, the proposed framework supports stable FL operation without modifying client side training or increasing communication overhead.

Abstract-only analysis — low confidence

All signals on this page are inferred from the abstract only and may be inaccurate. Do not use this page as a primary protocol reference.

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.
The available metadata is too thin to trust this as a primary source.
The abstract does not clearly describe the evaluation setup.
The abstract does not clearly name benchmarks or metrics.

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub

Should You Rely On This Paper?

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

Background context only.

Main weakness

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

0/100 • Low

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Weak / implicit signal

Usefulness for eval research

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence 15%

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here:

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub Tool-Use Eval Hub

What We Could Verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.