Blockchain-Enabled Auditable Quality Scoring Architecture for Large Language Model API Services

Authors

  • Rainer Terry Department of Computer Science, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA.
  • Lars Ramirez Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, USA.

Keywords:

blockchain, large language models, API services, quality scoring, auditability, decentralized governance, smart contracts, trustworthiness, fairness, scalable infrastructure

Abstract

The rapid proliferation of large language model (LLM) API services has created an urgent need for transparent, verifiable, and trustworthy quality assessment mechanisms. Current evaluation frameworks often rely on centralized benchmarks, proprietary scoring, or black-box provider reporting, which undermines user trust, hinders comparative analysis, and limits regulatory oversight. This paper proposes a blockchain-enabled auditable quality scoring architecture that integrates distributed ledger technology with machine learning driven quality prediction to provide immutable, publicly verifiable records of LLM API performance. The architecture decouples quality measurement from service providers by employing a network of independent evaluators who submit scoring transactions to a permissionless blockchain. A unique quality score, derived from a weighted combination of response accuracy, latency, consistency, and fairness metrics, is computed on-chain using smart contracts. The system incorporates a reputation module for evaluators and a dispute resolution mechanism to handle contested scores. We discuss structural trade-offs among decentralization, latency, and storage overhead, and analyze the governance frameworks needed to ensure long-term viability. Through a comparative analysis with existing centralized quality assurance systems, we demonstrate that the blockchain approach enhances auditability without sacrificing scalability, provided that layer two solutions and off-chain computation are employed. The paper also examines policy implications for regulatory compliance, data sovereignty, and provider accountability. Finally, we outline future directions for integrating quality scores into automated service selection and decentralized AI marketplaces. The proposed architecture offers a concrete pathway toward more transparent and equitable LLM service ecosystems.

References

1. Bommasani, R., Hudson, D. A., Adeli, E., Altman, R., Arora, S., von Arx, S., ... & Liang, P. (2021). On the opportunities and risks of foundation models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.07258.

2. Raji, I. D., Smart, A., White, R. N., Mitchell, M., Gebru, T., Hutchinson, B., & Barnes, J. (2020). Closing the AI accountability gap: Defining an end-to-end framework for internal algorithmic auditing. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (pp. 33–44).

3. Wood, G. (2014). Ethereum: A secure decentralised generalised transaction ledger. Ethereum Project Yellow Paper, 151, 1–32.

4. Wang, A., Singh, A., Michael, J., Hill, F., Levy, O., & Bowman, S. R. (2018). GLUE: A multi-task benchmark and analysis platform for natural language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2018 EMNLP Workshop BlackboxNLP (pp. 353–355).

5. Novikova, J., Dušek, O., & Rieser, V. (2017). Why we need new evaluation metrics for NLG. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (pp. 2241–2252).

6. Zheng, L., Chiang, W. L., Sheng, Y., Zhuang, S., Wu, Z., Zhuang, Y., ... & Stoica, I. (2023). Judging LLM-as-a-judge with MT-bench and chatbot arena. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36.

7. Bonawitz, K., Huba, D., Kreuter, F., McGregor, S., Patel, P., Ramage, D., & Sahu, S. (2021). Practical federated learning in a virtual world. Communications of the ACM, 64(5), 66–74.

8. Bühler, T., Dehling, T., & Sunyaev, A. (2022). A decentralized testing framework for AI model evaluation. In Proceedings of the 55th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 6373–6382).

9. Gao, H., Zeng, W., Zhang, J., & Liang, Y. (2025, December). A large model API response quality prediction model based on least squares vector machine and SHAP interpretability analysis. In 2025 5th International Symposium on Artificial Intelligence and Big Data (AIBDF) (pp. 438-442). IEEE.

10. Kalodner, H., Goldfeder, S., Chen, X., Weinberg, S. M., & Felten, E. W. (2018). Arbitrum: Scalable, private smart contracts. In Proceedings of the 27th USENIX Security Symposium (pp. 1353–1370).

11. Benet, J. (2014). IPFS - Content addressed, versioned, P2P file system. arXiv preprint arXiv:1407.3561.

12. Saxena, V., Saxena, S., & Kaur, H. (2021). Merkle tree based data verification in blockchain. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1963(1), 012136.

13. Mehrabi, N., Morstatter, F., Saxena, N., Lerman, K., & Galstyan, A. (2021). A survey on bias and fairness in machine learning. ACM Computing Surveys, 54(6), 1–35.

14. Ben Sasson, E., Chiesa, A., Garman, C., Green, M., Miers, I., Tromer, E., & Virza, M. (2014). Zerocash: Decentralized anonymous payments from Bitcoin. In 2014 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (pp. 459–474).

15. Bozzi, L., Buterin, V., & Hitz, M. (2023). Optimistic rollups: A trust-minimized scaling solution for blockchains. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.04672.

16. Selbst, A. D., Boyd, D., Friedler, S. A., Venkatasubramanian, S., & Vertesi, J. (2019). Fairness and abstraction in sociotechnical systems. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (pp. 59–68).

17. Androulaki, E., Barger, A., Bortnikov, V., Cachin, C., Christidis, K., De Caro, A., ... & Yellick, J. (2018). Hyperledger Fabric: A distributed operating system for permissioned blockchains. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth EuroSys Conference (pp. 1–15).

18. Narayanan, A., & Clark, J. (2017). Bitcoin's academic pedigree. Communications of the ACM, 60(12), 36–45.

19. Ozturk, O., & Riva, O. (2020). A survey on blockchain-based digital identity management. Journal of Information Security and Applications, 54, 102562.

20. Zhang, J., Li, Z., Niu, B., & Liao, Q. (2022). A blockchain-based machine learning model provenance framework. IEEE Transactions on Services Computing, 15(5), 2768–2781.

21. Xie, S., & Zheng, Z. (2020). Blockchain for the Internet of Things: A survey. IEEE Internet of Things Journal, 7(4), 3260–3273.

Downloads

Published

2025-03-15

How to Cite

Rainer Terry, & Lars Ramirez. (2025). Blockchain-Enabled Auditable Quality Scoring Architecture for Large Language Model API Services. Computer Science and Engineering Transactions, 3(1). Retrieved from https://csetx.org/index.php/cset/article/view/162