# TRUST: A Framework for Decentralized AI Service v.0.1

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.27132 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.27132/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Reasoning for agents, planning and code, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning.
- Builds on 23 of its 45 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 29 Apr 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM reasoning / [Reasoning for agents, planning and code](https://mlsanity.com/lr/reasoning-for-agents-planning-and-code/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 23 of 23)

- [GPT-4 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.08774/) (2023)
- [Toolformer: Language Models Can Teach Themselves to Use Tools](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.04761/) (2023)
- [Training a Helpful and Harmless Assistant with Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2204.05862/) (2022)
- [SWE-bench: Can Language Models Resolve Real-World GitHub Issues?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.06770/) (2023)
- [Universal and Transferable Adversarial Attacks on Aligned Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.15043/) (2023)
- [A Survey on LLM-as-a-Judge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2411.15594/) (2024)
- [OpenAI o1 System Card](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.16720/) (2024)
- [Ignore Previous Prompt: Attack Techniques For Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2211.09527/) (2022)
- [ChatEval: Towards Better LLM-based Evaluators through Multi-Agent Debate](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.07201/) (2023)
- [Measuring Faithfulness in Chain-of-Thought Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.13702/) (2023)
- [Why Do Multi-Agent LLM Systems Fail?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.13657/) (2025)
- [Scalable Extraction of Training Data from (Production) Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.17035/) (2023)
- [Justice or Prejudice? Quantifying Biases in LLM-as-a-Judge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.02736/) (2024)
- [Humans or LLMs as the Judge? A Study on Judgement Biases](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.10669/) (2024)
- [LexGLUE: A Benchmark Dataset for Legal Language Understanding in English](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2110.00976/) (2021)
- [Holistic Evaluation of Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2211.09110/) (2022)
- [FinGPT: Instruction Tuning Benchmark for Open-Source Large Language Models in Financial Datasets](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.04793/) (2023)
- [The Foundation Model Transparency Index](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.12941/) (2023)
- [Deconstructing Long Chain-of-Thought: A Structured Reasoning Optimization Framework for Long CoT Distillation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.16385/) (2025)
- [Risk Analysis Techniques for Governed LLM-based Multi-Agent Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.05687/) (2025)
- [Debate, Deliberate, Decide (D3): A Cost-Aware Adversarial Framework for Reliable and Interpretable LLM Evaluation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.04663/) (2024)
- [Cloud Atlas: Efficient Fault Localization for Cloud Systems using Language Models and Causal Insight](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.08694/) (2024)
- [CoT-ICL Lab: A Synthetic Framework for Studying Chain-of-Thought Learning from In-Context Demonstrations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.15132/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) and Multi-Agent Systems (MAS) in high-stakes domains demand reliable verification, yet centralized approaches suffer four limitations: (1) Robustness, with single points of failure vulnerable to attacks and bias; (2) Scalability, as reasoning complexity creates bottlenecks; (3) Opacity, as hidden auditing erodes trust; and (4) Privacy, as exposed reasoning traces risk model theft. We introduce TRUST (Transparent, Robust, and Unified Services for Trustworthy AI), a decentralized framework with three innovations: (i) Hierarchical Directed Acyclic Graphs (HDAGs) that decompose Chain-of-Thought reasoning into five abstraction levels for parallel distributed auditing; (ii) the DAAN protocol, which projects multi-agent interactions into Causal Interaction Graphs (CIGs) for deterministic root-cause attribution; and (iii) a multi-tier consensus mechanism among computational checkers, LLM evaluators, and human experts with stake-weighted voting that guarantees correctness under 30% adversarial participation. We prove a Safety-Profitability Theorem ensuring honest auditors profit while malicious actors incur losses. All decisions are recorded on-chain, while privacy-by-design segmentation prevents reconstruction of proprietary logic. Across multiple LLMs and benchmarks, TRUST attains 72.4% accuracy (4-18% above baselines) and remains resilient against 20% corruption. DAAN reaches 70% root-cause attribution (vs. 54-63% for standard methods) with 60% token savings. Human studies validate the design (F1 = 0.89, Brier = 0.074). The framework supports (A1) decentralized auditing, (A2) tamper-proof leaderboards, (A3) trustless data annotation, and (A4) governed autonomous agents, pioneering decentralized AI auditing for safe, accountable deployment of reasoning-capable systems.