Proposal Explorer

Add claims to see which ones the mechanisms address.

Built for an adversarial prover

Remote detection of data centres

No new hardware needed

Remote detection of data centres

Not counted

Excluded by your filters: Sampled inference recomputation and Bandwidth limits and compartmentalization

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.

• Sampled inference recomputation: Analysis · excluded by filters
• Remote detection of data centres: Analysis
• Bandwidth limits and compartmentalization: Analysis · excluded by filters

Excluded by your filters

• Sampled inference recomputation Prover cooperation is required; the filter allows partial at most.
• Bandwidth limits and compartmentalization Prover cooperation is required; the filter allows partial at most.

Open significant failures

4 failures in 2 mechanisms

• Tolerance for numerical noise leaves a covert channel in Sampled inference recomputation

  Schemes that accept approximate matches can put an upper bound on an adversary's covert bandwidth, but they cannot close the channel. The weight-exfiltration detector cut exfiltratable information to under 0.5%, not to zero, on a 30-billion-parameter mixture-of-experts model under benign prompt traffic. Its authors called the channel's size under adversarial prompts an open empirical question. An independent study showed that an adversary who controls the prompts roughly doubles the bits leaked per token. Across six models, that cut the slowdown from 146–254 times under benign prompts to 60–118 times. The attack widens the exfiltration bound. It does not target the check that outputs match the declared model. ^{1 9 12}

  Known failure · Demonstrated attack · Significant · Open. On the record

  Related mechanism Operational use Deterministic and bit-exact inference: Bit-exact inference would remove the numerical tolerance if exact replay can be deployed with the required weights and configuration. A pointer, not evidence that this failure is mitigated. Add

• Some inference optimizations are not covered in Sampled inference recomputation

  TOPLOC's authors state that it cannot detect speculative decoding in which a cheaper model does the decoding. They did not test whether it distinguishes types of key-value (KV) cache compression. DiFR was evaluated only on sampling from a single model. Its authors sketch an extension to one speculative-decoding algorithm but do not test it. ^{2 3}

  Known failure · 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. ²¹

  Known failure · Theoretical argument · 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. ²³

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

Scope limitations

• Only recorded traffic is checked in Sampled inference recomputation

  Recomputation checks that recorded, declared workloads are correct. It cannot show that the record is complete. The published schemes do not cover hidden workloads run on the same compute, or substituted work. Rinberg et al. say their exfiltration-detection scheme cannot stand alone. ^{1 13}

  Scope limitation · Theoretical argument. On the record

  Related mechanism Proposed Network taps and certifiers: Taps copy and hash all traffic on the monitored links, which bears on whether the traffic record is complete. They do not show what else ran on the same chips. A pointer, not evidence that this failure is mitigated. Add

• Facilities can be disguised or hidden in Remote detection of data centres

  Halstead and Larsen discuss two ways to hide a facility. One is to disguise it as a legitimate industrial site. The other is to build it underground, with cooling that avoids visible heat plumes. They note that the underground option requires bespoke engineering. ¹⁵

  Scope limitation · Theoretical argument. On the record

• Small sites may not be detectable in Remote detection of data centres

  Halstead and Larsen conclude that a sufficiently small covert project could not be ruled out with confidence. In their estimates, the chance of detection is lower for smaller sites. Krawec notes that small data centres in existing buildings may lack the distinctive features of large facilities. ^{15 17}

  Scope limitation · Theoretical argument. On the record

  Related mechanism Proposed Chip registries and manufacturing records: Accounts for chips from the fab onwards, which does not depend on a site being visible. A pointer, not evidence that this failure is mitigated. Add

• 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. ²¹

  Scope limitation · Theoretical argument. 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. ²¹

  Scope limitation · Open question. On the record

Open questions

• Search for unknown sites is undemonstrated in Remote detection of data centres

  Krawec reports that telling data centres apart from other industrial facilities systematically is difficult. Automating detection would need large amounts of training imagery and a purpose-trained model. In Krawec's words, automated data-centre detection "remains primarily conceptual at present". ¹⁷

  Open question · Open question. On the record

• 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. ^{21 24 25}

  Open question · Theoretical argument. On the record

Open minor failures

1 mechanism with minor failures

• Mixed hardware widens the honest baseline in Sampled inference recomputation

  When honest reference runs span different GPU types, the spread of benign scores grows. In DiFR's tests on Qwen3-30B-A3B, pooling A100 and H200 runs left Token-DiFR unable to separate the two smallest tested changes, a temperature of 1.1 instead of 1.0 and a simulated top-2 sampling bug, at the target false-positive rate, while cross-entropy separated them. Matched provider and verifier environments, or pooling that weights rare large deviations, restored detection. ²

  Known failure · Open question · Minor · Open. On the record

Not yet demonstrated

Proposed Remote detection of data centres

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

• Research demo Tamper evidence for verifier devices Add
  • 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.
• Operational use Deterministic and bit-exact inference Add

  Excluded by filters: prover cooperation required

  • Bears on the open significant failure “Tolerance for numerical noise leaves a covert channel” in Sampled inference recomputation. Bit-exact inference would remove the numerical tolerance if exact replay can be deployed with the required weights and configuration.
• Proposed Network taps and certifiers Add

  Excluded by filters: prover cooperation required

  • Sampled inference recomputation waits on it. In tap-based retrofit designs, recording all inference traffic needs network taps and recomputation servers that can ingest it, in the worst case one recomputation-server network interface per inference front-end interface.
  • Bandwidth limits and compartmentalization waits on it. The verifier must know that all traffic leaving a pod crosses the capped, monitored links.

Missing prerequisites

• Research demo Tamper evidence for verifier devices needed by Bandwidth limits and compartmentalization Add

Shared foundations

• Network taps and certifiers relied on by Sampled inference recomputation and Bandwidth limits and compartmentalization

Blockers

12 blockers recorded

• Sampled inference recomputation
  • In tap-based retrofit designs, recording all inference traffic needs network taps and recomputation servers that can ingest it, in the worst case one recomputation-server network interface per inference front-end interface. Coverage & hidden compute. Waits on Network taps and certifiers ^{8 20}
  • In retrofit designs, the recomputation server must sit inside the prover's data centre, possibly under the prover's physical control, and still be protected from a compromised provider, which Amodo rates 'not on track'. Hardware trust ^{1 8}
  • No independent red-team of a recomputation consistency check has been published (the one independent attack study targets the weight-exfiltration bound), and Amodo rates recomputation red-teaming 'not started'. Adversarial validation ^{8 9}
  • Tolerance-based checks need calibration on trusted hardware and exact knowledge of the provider's sampling procedure, and in one prototype a sampling-implementation mismatch produced large spurious differences. Performance & compatibility ^{2 7}
  • The verifier needs the model weights, so checking a closed-weights model requires a trusted, confidential recomputation environment, which the retrofit designs place inside the prover's facility. Privacy & leakage ^{2 13 14}
• Remote detection of data centres
  • Wide-area, automated detection of data centres is not yet practical and needs large training datasets. Coverage & hidden compute ¹⁷
  • No measured detection or false-alarm rates for finding undeclared facilities have been published. Adversarial validation ^{15 17}
  • Recent high-resolution imagery is costly, is limited by weather and needs trained analysts. Access & governance ¹⁷
• Bandwidth limits and compartmentalization
  • No cap that a verifier can check has been implemented or red-teamed. Adversarial validation ²¹
  • The verifier must know that all traffic leaving a pod crosses the capped, monitored links. Coverage & hidden compute. Waits on Network taps and certifiers ¹⁴
  • 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 ^{21 23}
  • Advances in low-communication training could shrink the margin that the cap enforces. Capacity bounds ^{21 24 25}

From the family or selected implementation's record. ?

Model weights

Depends on the design for Sampled inference recomputation.

Not involved: Remote detection of data centres and Bandwidth limits and compartmentalization.

Inputs and outputs

Depends on the design for Sampled inference recomputation.

Not involved: Remote detection of data centres and Bandwidth limits and compartmentalization.

Training data

Not involved: Sampled inference recomputation, Remote detection of data centres and Bandwidth limits and compartmentalization.

Sampled inference recomputation

• Proposed AI 2040 inference-only verification stack Proposed architecture, AI Futures Project
• Research demo DiFR (Divergence From Reference) Research prototype
• Proposed Low-trust AI compute verification system overview Proposed architecture, Machine Intelligence Research Institute
• Proposed SASH confidential network logger Research prototype, Singapore AI Safety Hub (SASH)
• Operational use TOPLOC Open-source project, Prime Intellect

Remote detection of data centres

None on the map

Bandwidth limits and compartmentalization

• Proposed AI 2040 inference-only verification stack Proposed architecture, AI Futures Project
• Proposed RAND secure inference data center (SIDC) design Proposed architecture, RAND

1. Verifying LLM Inference to Detect Model Weight Exfiltration, R. Rinberg et al. (2025). Original
2. DiFR: Inference Verification Despite Nondeterminism, A. Karvonen et al. (2025). Original
3. TOPLOC: A Locality Sensitive Hashing Scheme for Trustless Verifiable Inference, J. M. Ong et al. (2025). Original
4. PrimeIntellect-ai/toploc (GitHub repository), Prime Intellect (2025). Original
5. INTELLECT-2: A Reasoning Model Trained Through Globally Decentralized Reinforcement Learning, Prime Intellect Team et al. (2025). Original
6. adamkarvonen/difr (GitHub repository), A. Karvonen (2025). Original
7. Scaling Recomputation Inference Verification, Amodo Design (2026). Original
8. AI 2040 Plan A — Verification SITREP, Amodo Design (2026). Original
9. Adversarial Entropy Inflation Against Gumbel-Based Inference Verification, N. Kezins (2026). Original
10. SYNTHETIC-2 Release: Four Million Collaboratively Generated Reasoning Traces, Prime Intellect (2025). Original
11. An Inference Verification Prototype — Stage 1, Amodo Design (2026). Original
12. Bit-Exact AI Inference Verification Without Performance Tradeoffs, N. Cankaya (2026). Original
13. Example Schemes for Verifying High-Stakes AI Agreements, Amodo Design (2026). Original
14. A System Overview for Near-Term, Low-Trust AI Compute Verification, N. Cankaya (2026). Original
15. Covert AI Projects, B. Halstead & T. Larsen (2026). Original
16. Verifying International Agreements on AI: Six Layers of Verification for Rules on Large-Scale AI Development and Deployment, M. Baker et al. (2025). Original
17. Tracking Hyperscale AI Data Center Growth with Satellite Imagery, C. Krawec (2026). Original
18. Introducing the Frontier Data Centers Hub, Epoch AI (2025). Original
19. AI Data Centers Documentation – Methodology, Epoch AI (2026). Original
20. Verification Plan, R. Dean (2026). Original
21. Traffic Shaping for Workload Classification, Lucid Computing (2026). Original
22. De-risking Interconnect Limits for AI Verification, A. Scher et al. (2026). Original
23. The Tray as a Bandwidth Boundary, Amodo Design (2026). Original
24. DiLoCo: Distributed Low-Communication Training of Language Models, A. Douillard et al. (2024). Original
25. Does Distributed Training Undermine Compute Governance?, R. Rahman (2026). Original