AI Verification Tech MapSearch

Proposal Explorer

Reset

A verification proposal from the AI Verification Tech Map, from its records of 2026-10-09. https://trustbutveri.fyi/explorer/?mechanisms=M-0003,M-0007&cols=tested

Claims

Mechanisms2

Analysis

Overview

Columns Claims Prover Attack testing Hardware Verifier sees
MechanismDevelopmentSecurity evidenceOpen failuresAttack testing
Whole-workload recomputation (reproducible packets) ProposedNo published adversarial analysis recordednoneNone
Proofs of useful work for capacity accounting ProposedPublished security analysis1Analysis
  • Open failures: n critical n significant n minor
Claim coverageNo claims yet

Add claims to see which ones the mechanisms address.

Properties2 built for an adversarial prover
Attack testing1 mechanism with published testing

Attack testing records published testing for this use. It does not by itself show independent review, a formal proof or that a deployed system is secure.

Limits2 scope limitations · 2 open questions · 2 not yet demonstrated · 1 mechanism with open significant failures
Open significant failures
1 failure in 1 mechanism
  • Known shortcuts let a miner claim somewhat more work than it did in Proofs of useful work for capacity accounting

    Pearl's specification lists known mining speedups: crafted inputs, precision shortcuts, seed grinding, work reuse, and faster kernels or hardware. A policy check caps the summands a miner may skip at one-sixteenth of those in a tile. For capacity bounding, any gap between work proven and work possible leaves spare capacity. 10

    Known failure · Theoretical argument · Significant · Open. On the record

Scope limitations
  • Spare compute is outside the scheme in Whole-workload recomputation (reproducible packets)

    The plan states that it does not verify that spare compute is not used for unapproved workloads, because this seems very challenging. Recomputation checks the correctness of declared work, not its completeness. 1 2

    Scope limitation · Theoretical argument. On the record

    Related mechanism Proposed Proofs of useful work for capacity accounting: Proposed as one input to accounting for spare capacity on declared hardware. A pointer, not evidence that this failure is mitigated. In the proposal.

  • Proves that work was done, not that no capacity remains in Proofs of useful work for capacity accounting

    Proof-of-work accounting bounds unmonitored compute only relative to an estimate of what the actor has. Attestable states that the verifier "needs a credible estimate of the compute available" to the actor, and that a proof "cannot discover a datacenter that was never declared". 7

    Scope limitation · Theoretical argument. On the record

    Related mechanism Proposed Chip registries and manufacturing records: A registry of chips is one basis for the estimate of available compute that the flaw's source says the verifier needs. A pointer, not evidence that this failure is mitigated. Add

    Related mechanism Proposed Remote detection of data centres: Looks for data centres that were never declared, which a proof cannot discover. A pointer, not evidence that this failure is mitigated. Add

Open questions
  • Non-compliant work could be encoded inside compliant-looking packets in Whole-workload recomputation (reproducible packets)

    The plan notes that an AI company might try to encode a non-compliant workload inside a workload that looks compliant on the surface. 1

    Open question · Theoretical argument. On the record

  • Security rests on new hardness assumptions in Proofs of useful work for capacity accounting

    Komargodski and Weinstein base security on hardness assumptions about batches of low-rank random linear equations, and list PoUW "from more standard or well-studied assumptions" as an open problem. Pearl's floating-point variant introduces a further "quantized-subspace hardness" assumption. 9 10

    Open question · Open question. On the record

Possible additions2 for dependencies

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

Dependencies2 missing prerequisites · 7 blockers
Missing prerequisites
Blockers
7 blockers recorded
  • Whole-workload recomputation (reproducible packets)
    • Workloads are not reproducible by default, and achieving reproducibility may cost performance. Performance & compatibility. Waits on Deterministic and bit-exact inference 1
    • Network packets are not individually reproducible by default; making them so may need considerable software, firmware and hardware work. Amodo rates this 'not on track'. Performance & compatibility 4
    • All traffic must reach the recomputation server via network taps, and the server's integrity is critical. Hardware trust. Waits on Network taps and certifiers 1 4
    • Recomputing training steps needs checkpoints: writing one at every step would cost more than 100% overhead, so Amodo's design needs a spare data-parallel replica that tracks the weights instead. Performance & compatibility 2
  • Proofs of useful work for capacity accounting
    • Bounding spare capacity needs a credible estimate of the compute available to the actor, including third-party access. Capacity bounds 7
    • Proofs of work cannot find facilities that were never declared. Coverage & hidden compute 7
    • As of September 2026 no implementation, demonstration or independent evaluation of proofs of work for capacity bounding has been published. Adversarial validation
What the verifier sees2 depend on design

From the family or selected implementation's record.

Exposure notes
  • Whole-workload recomputation (reproducible packets): Recomputing sampled units needs weights and sampled inputs or training data inside the checking environment. The design depends on securing that environment; disclosure depends on its confidentiality boundary. 1 2
  • Proofs of useful work for capacity accounting: Checking a sampled tile of a matrix multiplication reveals that tile, which may hold model or input data; the authors suggest a zero-knowledge proof when the matrices must stay private.
Implementations2 systems
Whole-workload recomputation (reproducible packets)
Proofs of useful work for capacity accounting
Sources11 cited
  1. Verification Plan, R. Dean (2026). Original
  2. Example Schemes for Verifying High-Stakes AI Agreements, Amodo Design (2026). Original
  3. Scaling Recomputation Inference Verification, Amodo Design (2026). Original
  4. AI 2040 Plan A — Verification SITREP, Amodo Design (2026). Original
  5. Get Involved in Verification, AI Futures Project (2026). Original
  6. Proof-of-Learning is Currently More Broken Than You Think, C. Fang et al. (2023). Original
  7. Pacing AI Requires Proof, Attestable (2026). Original
  8. Mechanisms to Verify International Agreements About AI Development, A. Scher & L. Thiergart (2025). Original
  9. Proofs of Useful Work from Arbitrary Matrix Multiplication, I. Komargodski & O. Weinstein (2025). Original
  10. Pearl Floating Point Scheme Specification, Pearl Research Team (2026). Original
  11. pearl: Monorepo for the Pearl network, Pearl Research Labs (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.

All 25 mechanisms match.

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 development status

Development status

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, development status, security evidence, assumptions and findings.

All claims

Mechanisms

A mechanism is a general technique for verifying claims. Its badge is its development status 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. Failure counts are per mechanism. Summary counts name mechanisms with open failures, not a sum of attacks. Choosing an implementation narrows each row to that record's assessed use; family findings remain as context. Findings are grouped as known failures, scope limitations and open questions. Only known failures count as failures. Counts are an inventory of published findings, not a risk score.

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 failure or a dependency. They are pointers, not recommendations: each brings its own readiness level and findings, and none is claimed to close a failure. Links from failures 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