Proposal Explorer

Reset

A verification proposal from the AI Verification Tech Map, from its records of 2026-10-08. https://trustbutveri.fyi/explorer/?mechanisms=M-0014,M-0013,M-0002&hide=training&cols=claims,tested

Claims

Mechanisms3

Filters:× 24 of 25 match

Applied filters: Keep hidden from the verifier: training data. Not set (Any): Prover, Verifier devices on site, Prover cooperation, Chips, Minimum readiness, Attack testing.

Analysis

Applied filters: Keep hidden from the verifier: training data. Not set (Any): Prover, Verifier devices on site, Prover cooperation, Chips, Minimum readiness, Attack testing.

MechanismReadinessOpen flawsAttack testing
Bandwidth limits and compartmentalization R25 significantAnalysis
Network taps and certifiers R15 significantAnalysis
Deterministic and bit-exact inference R31 significant1 minorAnalysis
  • Open flaws: n critical n significant n minor
Claim coverageNo claims yet

Add claims to see which ones the mechanisms address.

Properties1 in production · 3 built for an adversarial prover
In production
Flaws since mitigated
  • Verifier dictionary attacks on hashes in Network taps and certifiers 8
Attack testing3 mechanisms with published testing

Published attempts to break a system, including those that found failures. Testing history does not show that open flaws are resolved.

Limits1 not yet demonstrated · 3 mechanisms with open significant findings
Open significant flaws
11 flaws in 3 mechanisms
  • Low-communication training reduces the bandwidth training needs in Bandwidth limits and compartmentalization

    DiLoCo matched fully synchronous training on 8 workers while communicating 500 times less. Rahman writes that this family of methods theoretically allows large-scale training with less than 100 Mbps. Lucid includes these methods in its bounds, but notes that extreme activation compression, architectures with unusually small inter-layer widths, or modular paradigms could erode the margin. 2 6 7

    Theoretical argument · Significant · Open. On the record

  • Operator control of pod routing collapses the bound in Bandwidth limits and compartmentalization

    Lucid's analysis finds that if the operator can freely assign pods to routers, it could dedicate a whole cell of 100 or more pods to one pipeline stage. The bound then falls to about 90–220x uncompressed and as low as about 25x with compression. The proposed mitigation, auditor-controlled random assignment that is periodically re-randomized, has not been implemented. 2

    Theoretical argument · Significant · Open. On the record

  • Undeclared local storage raises per-pod capacity in Bandwidth limits and compartmentalization

    More memory or storage per pod helps an adversary. Lucid requires per-pod storage to be declared, capped and physically inspected. 2

    Theoretical argument · Significant · Open. On the record

  • Training within one pod is not covered in Bandwidth limits and compartmentalization

    Lucid's bounds concern pre-training models larger than the pods are sized for. Training models that fit in one pod, fine-tuning and reinforcement-learning post-training within one pod are outside the modelled threat. 2

    Open question · Significant · Open. On the record

  • Parallel scale-up switches are hard enforcement points in Bandwidth limits and compartmentalization

    In GB200 topologies, GPUs reach GPUs in other nodes through NVSwitches without a NIC on the path. Amodo notes that limits are hard to enforce there because many switches work in parallel, so compromising one or two would bypass the limit. 5

    Theoretical argument · Significant · Open. On the record

  • Output nondeterminism leaves covert capacity in Network taps and certifiers

    Hashing cannot remove information hidden in the outputs themselves. The Secure Gateway Device paper estimates that about 0.1 bit per token remains even with seed-synchronized replay checks. For a 200k-GPU inference cluster at full load (2,000 tokens per GPU per second), that is about 40 Mbit/s of covert egress, enough to move a 1 TB model in under three days. The paper names this the core remaining challenge and points to deterministic replay or active scrubbing of hardware-induced entropy. An independent study found that an adversary who chooses the prompts roughly doubles the bits leaked per token under Gumbel-based inference verification; see Bounding unexplained information in outputs. 8 14

    Theoretical argument · Significant · Open. On the record

    Related mechanism R3 Deterministic and bit-exact inference: Deterministic replay is one of the two remedies the flaw's source names. A pointer, not evidence that this flaw is mitigated. In the proposal.

    Related mechanism R2 Bounding unexplained information in outputs: Bounds the hidden information outputs can carry by measuring what the declared computation fails to predict. A pointer, not evidence that this flaw is mitigated. Add

  • Some links cannot be passively tapped in Network taps and certifiers

    Cankaya notes that copper-connected scale-up domains (for example NVL72 racks and TPU v7 cubes) are much harder to tap than fibre, and that optical budgets make passive taps impractical on 400GBASE-SR8 multimode links. Amodo found no taps advertised for 53 GBaud links as of May 2026. 9 15

    Open question · Significant · Open. On the record

  • Encrypted fabrics hide plaintext from both parties in Network taps and certifiers

    Cankaya notes that with TEE-protected sessions whose keys are ephemeral and managed inside the TEE, neither the operator nor the manufacturer can recover session keys after the session, so tapped traffic could not be opened for recomputation. For other encrypted fabrics, the operator can retain keys. 9

    Open question · Significant · Open. On the record

  • Residual side channels in simple passive setups in Network taps and certifiers

    Amodo's analysis of its own tapped prototype lists unvalidated header fields, timing of permitted traffic and variation in response formatting as residual channels, and concludes that the passive tap must be replaced by an active one. 10

    Theoretical argument · Significant · Open. On the record

  • Completeness rests on physical monitoring left out of scope in Network taps and certifiers

    The Secure Gateway Device paper assumes the facility is physically monitored, and states that the whole architecture depends on the device being the only communication channel. It names radio emanation, power-line signalling and thermal channels as covert channels beyond that scope. 8

    Open question · Significant · Open. On the record

    Related mechanism R1 Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities: Addresses the radio, power-line and thermal channels that network-level designs leave out. A pointer, not evidence that this flaw is mitigated. Add

  • Cross-hardware replay relies on reverse-engineered, closed behaviour in Deterministic and bit-exact inference

    Emulating one GPU's rounding on another requires reverse-engineering tensor-core arithmetic and modelling proprietary kernel choices. Hawkeye covers a subset of NVIDIA architectures and states that attention and other higher-level operations need further reverse engineering. For the bit-exact emulator, a proprietary Hopper kernel family is an open edge case. 16 18

    Open question · Significant · Open. On the record

Open minor flaws
1 mechanism with minor findings
  • Some kernels remain genuinely nondeterministic in Deterministic and bit-exact inference

    The bit-exact work separates kernels that are deterministic but not batch-invariant from truly nondeterministic ones that use atomic functions. Some integer de-quantization kernels use atomic additions and remain nondeterministic, so exact replay needs backends that avoid them. 16

    Open question · Minor · Open. On the record

Not yet demonstrated
R1 Network taps and certifiers
Possible additions2 for open flaws · 3 for dependencies

Mechanisms on the map that are not in the proposal. Pointers, not recommendations.

    • Bears on the open significant flaw “Output nondeterminism leaves covert capacity” in Network taps and certifiers. Bounds the hidden information outputs can carry by measuring what the declared computation fails to predict.
    • Bears on the open significant flaw “Completeness rests on physical monitoring left out of scope” in Network taps and certifiers. Addresses the radio, power-line and thermal channels that network-level designs leave out.
    • Network taps and certifiers waits on it. Radio, power-line and thermal channels are not addressed by network-level designs.
    • Bandwidth limits and compartmentalization waits on it. Shaping devices and routing assignments must be trusted by both parties; Amodo has not yet fully analysed resilience to a compromised DPU.
    • Network taps and certifiers waits on it. Taps and gateway devices need tamper-evident housing and physical monitoring so that traffic cannot bypass them.
    • Network taps and certifiers depends on it.
Dependencies3 missing prerequisites · 1 shared foundation · 13 blockers
Missing prerequisites
Shared foundations
Blockers
13 blockers recorded
  • Bandwidth limits and compartmentalization
    • No cap that a verifier can check has been implemented or red-teamed. Adversarial validation 2
    • The verifier must know that all traffic leaving a pod crosses the capped, monitored links. Coverage & hidden compute. Waits on Network taps and certifiers 3
    • Shaping devices and routing assignments must be trusted by both parties; Amodo has not yet fully analysed resilience to a compromised DPU. Hardware trust. Waits on Tamper evidence for verifier devices 2 5
    • Advances in low-communication training could shrink the margin that the cap enforces. Capacity bounds 2 6 7
  • Network taps and certifiers
    • No complete verification tap has been demonstrated at production frontend link rates, and on the tested CPU no hash algorithm reached line rate with minimum-size frames. Performance & compatibility 15 26
    • Nondeterministic inference leaves covert capacity in outputs that hashing cannot remove. Evidence binding. Waits on Deterministic and bit-exact inference 8
    • Taps and gateway devices need tamper-evident housing and physical monitoring so that traffic cannot bypass them. Hardware trust. Waits on Tamper evidence for verifier devices 3 8
    • Radio, power-line and thermal channels are not addressed by network-level designs. Coverage & hidden compute. Waits on Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities 8
    • Red-teaming by specialists is called for but has not been reported. Adversarial validation 8
  • Deterministic and bit-exact inference
    • Batch-invariant kernels cost throughput: in Thinking Machines' Qwen3-8B test, an improved deterministic build took 42 s against 26 s for vLLM's default, and SGLang reports an average 34.35% slowdown on its FlashInfer and FlashAttention 3 backends. Performance & compatibility 17 19
    • Coverage is incomplete: the bit-exact emulator targets dense blocks on NVIDIA GPUs and excludes mixture-of-experts inference and training, and vLLM's batch-invariant mode is in beta, with open work on AMD hardware and speculative decoding. Performance & compatibility 16 20 27
    • Amodo's status page for the AI 2040 verification plan rates a reproducible inference stack for that plan as 'not started'. Performance & compatibility 28
    • Exact replay requires the prover to disclose weights, software versions, parallelism and batch sizes to whoever recomputes. Privacy & leakage 3 16
What the verifier sees2 depend on design

From the family or selected implementation's record.

Exposure notes
Implementations6 systems
Bandwidth limits and compartmentalization
Network taps and certifiers
Deterministic and bit-exact inference
Sources28 cited
  1. Verification Plan, R. Dean (2026). Original
  2. Traffic Shaping for Workload Classification, Lucid Computing (2026). Original
  3. A System Overview for Near-Term, Low-Trust AI Compute Verification, N. Cankaya (2026). Original
  4. De-risking Interconnect Limits for AI Verification, A. Scher et al. (2026). Original
  5. The Tray as a Bandwidth Boundary, Amodo Design (2026). Original
  6. DiLoCo: Distributed Low-Communication Training of Language Models, A. Douillard et al. (2024). Original
  7. Does Distributed Training Undermine Compute Governance?, R. Rahman (2026). Original
  8. Fingerprinting All AI Cluster I/O Without Mutually Trusted Processors, N. Cankaya et al. (2026). Original
  9. The Fundamentals and Feasibility of Secure Network Taps for Verifying AI Datacenter Use, N. Cankaya (2026). Original
  10. Fitting a Network TAP to our Inference Verification Prototype, Amodo Design (2026). Original
  11. Amodo-Design/Inference-Recomputation-Prototype (GitHub repository), Amodo Design (2026). Original
  12. inference-verification: Inference Verification Prototype, Singapore AI Safety Hub (SASH) (2026). Original
  13. Internationalising AI Verification, Singapore AI Safety Hub (SASH) (2026). Original
  14. Adversarial Entropy Inflation Against Gumbel-Based Inference Verification, N. Kezins (2026). Original
  15. Network Tapping for AI Verification: A Technical Assessment, Amodo Design (2026). Original
  16. Bit-Exact AI Inference Verification Without Performance Tradeoffs, N. Cankaya (2026). Original
  17. Defeating Nondeterminism in LLM Inference, H. He & Thinking Machines Lab (2025). Original
  18. Hawkeye: Reproducing GPU-Level Non-Determinism, E. Badash et al. (2026). Original
  19. Towards Deterministic Inference in SGLang and Reproducible RL Training, The SGLang Team (2025). Original
  20. Batch Invariance (vLLM documentation), vLLM project (2026). Original
  21. gensyn-ai/ree: Gensyn Reproducible Execution Environment (GitHub repository), Gensyn (2026). Original
  22. EigenCloud Brings Verifiable AI to Mass Market with EigenAI and EigenCompute Launches, EigenCloud (2025). Original
  23. Building Delphi: Pricing, Settlement, and Agentic Trading, D. Jedamski (2026). Original
  24. Reproducible Execution Environment (REE) (Gensyn documentation), Gensyn (2026). Original
  25. What is Delphi? (Delphi documentation), Gensyn (2026). Original
  26. Network Traffic Hashing, Amodo Design (2026). Original
  27. [Feature]: Batch Invariant Feature and Performance Optimization (vLLM issue #27433), vLLM project contributors (2025). Original
  28. AI 2040 Plan A — Verification SITREP, Amodo Design (2026). Original

Share the link to this proposal. This proposal is also available as plain text and JSON.

Filter mechanisms

Filters apply to mechanisms only. They describe the setting a proposal is for, and all are off by default. A mechanism that a filter rules out is flagged and does not count towards claim coverage. Selected implementations use their own record fields. A match means not excluded; conditional or unspecified exposure stays with a note. Passing a filter does not establish that the assumptions hold in a deployment.

24 of 25 mechanisms match · Clear all

Prover

How far can the party being checked be trusted?

The prover is the party being checked. Semi-trusted designs rely on part of its stack: usually the chip vendor's hardware root of trust, its firmware or counters, or its supply-chain records. Adversarial designs aim to hold even if it cheats wherever the checks allow, within their stated assumptions.

Keeps mechanisms whose threat model holds against at least this prover. Adversarial is the strongest assumption. Definitions

Verifier devices on site

May the verifier install its own hardware at the prover's sites?

Some mechanisms need a device the verifier owns or trusts at the prover's facility, such as a network tap, a bandwidth limiter or a sealed sensor. Choose Not allowed when the setting rules that out. Inspectors are not covered.

"Not allowed" removes mechanisms that need a retrofit device, such as a network tap or a sealed sensor. Definitions

Prover cooperation

How much must the prover take part?

Required: the prover takes part, for example by logging requests, producing proofs or opening records. Partial: some access, such as installing a device. Not required: works from outside, such as satellite imagery.

"Partial at most" removes mechanisms that need the prover's active participation. "Not required" keeps only those that work without it. Definitions

Chips

May the proposal depend on new chip designs?

New chip features take years to reach a deployed fleet and cover only chips made after they ship. Mechanisms that use shipping features, such as trusted execution environments or performance counters, stay.

"Existing chips only" removes mechanisms that need changes to future chip designs. Definitions

Minimum readiness

How mature must each mechanism be?

A level describes the public evidence for a mechanism's stated use, not its cost or feasibility. R3 can still have open critical flaws.

Keeps mechanisms whose readiness level is at least this one. Definitions

Attack testing

How hard has each mechanism been attacked in public?

The strongest published attempt to break the mechanism for its verification use: a security analysis, red-teaming by its developers or collaborators, or a red team independent of them.

Keeps mechanisms whose strongest published attack testing is at least this. Definitions

Keep hidden from the verifier

What must the verifier never see? Choose any.

Model weights: the checked model's parameters. Inputs and outputs: the requests a deployed model serves and its responses. Training data: what a model was trained on. Each mechanism's exposure is the editors' reading of its record: shown, depends on the design (kept, with a note), hidden, not involved, or unspecified for a selected implementation. Code and configuration are not covered yet.

Removes mechanisms that show the asset to the verifier. Conditional or unspecified exposure stays with a note and needs checking against the privacy requirement.

Claims

A claim is something one party wants to verify about another party's AI hardware or software. Each claim's number shows how the proposal addresses it.

  • Addressed. A mechanism in the proposal is aimed at this claim and is not excluded by the filters.
  • Partly addressed. Only supporting mechanisms, or mechanisms aimed at it that the filters exclude.
  • Unaddressed. No mechanism in the proposal addresses this claim.

Addressed means a mechanism in the proposal is aimed at the claim and is not excluded by your filters. It does not mean the claim is verified: check its assessed use, readiness, assumptions and open flaws.

All claims

Mechanisms

A mechanism is a general technique for verifying claims. Its badge is its readiness level for its stated use. An optional implementation choice narrows its assumptions, assessed use and claim links to that record. Lines join it to the claims it addresses. Click a line for details.Under its name it lists the claims it is aimed at or supports.

  • Aimed at the claim: verifying it is a direct purpose of the mechanism.
  • Supports the claim: helps verify it without being aimed at it.
  • Faint: excluded by your filters, so it does not count towards claim coverage.

All mechanisms

Overview

One row per mechanism in the proposal. Every mark comes from that mechanism's record, as listed in the panels below; what the verifier sees is the editors' reading of the record's text. Flaw counts are per mechanism. Summary counts name mechanisms with open findings, not a sum of attacks. Choosing an implementation narrows each row to that record's assessed use; family findings remain as context.

What the verifier sees

For model weights, inputs and outputs, and training data. This is the editors' reading of each mechanism's record (its threat model, how it works and its limitations), not a field of the record. Shown: the verifier sees it. Depends: on the design or variant, or the verifier sees only samples. Hidden: the verifier sees only commitments, hashes, proofs or results. Not involved: the record does not handle it. Unspecified: the selected implementation has no asset-specific assessment here.

Possible additions

Mechanisms on the map, not in the proposal, that the records connect to an unaddressed or partly addressed claim, an open flaw or a dependency. They are pointers, not recommendations: each brings its own readiness level and flaws, and none is claimed to close a flaw. Links from flaws are the editors' reading of the two records.

Start from a published design

Choosing a design loads the mechanisms its record realises or depends on. If the proposal has no claims yet, it also loads the claims that record says the design addresses.

Search

Full search page